There is a case that will be heard by the US Supreme Court that promises
to be extremely divisive – and incredibly important. A deputy sheriff
near Winnemucca, Nevada received a call that a man in a pickup truck was
hitting a woman. He responded to the area to find a pickup truck on the side
of the road with a woman inside and a man standing outside. The officer stopped
to investigate. He asked the man for his name – eleven times. When
the man, later identified as Larry Hiibel, refused to give his name or provide
any form of identification he was taken into custody. He was charged with
resisting a police officer and obstructing an investigation by refusing to
give his name.

Incredibly, this case went all the way to the Nevada
Supreme Court because
Larry Hiibel and his many supporters believe it violates one's right to privacy
to be forced to give one's name when one doesn't want to – even to
the police. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Hiibel's conviction and a $250
fine.

Remember the police didn't stop Hiibel randomly, they were investigating
a complaint and Hiibel fit the description. Yet three dissenting Nevada Supreme
Court Justices thought that compelling Hiibel to identify himself violated
his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and his Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination.

Many people – wrongly I think – cite this case as another example
of the erosion of our civil liberties. If the police lose the right to identify
people reported as suspects or acting suspiciously, the thin blue line between
relative peace and anarchy would truly be erased.

Oddly, this case may revolve around movement. No one questions law enforcement's
right to ask for identification during a traffic stop. Because Hiibel was
already stopped, and outside his vehicle, some civil libertarians maintain
his right to withhold his name is sacrosanct.

In the majority decision, Nevada Justice Cliff Young wrote that the "right
to be let alone – to simply live in privacy" is sacred, but that
it is not absolute. Young and two other justices said that the "intrusion
on privacy" made by police seeking identification is "outweighed
by the benefits to officers and community safety." No one would condone
the police asking for identification willy-nilly or en masse, but when appropriate,
as when investigating a complaint, it is an absolutely necessary law enforcement
tool.

It is astounding that some people want to make it easier for murderers,
rapists, drug runners, and terrorists to walk and plan among us. I cherish
civil liberties. But some so-called civil libertarians exaggerate so wildly – characterize
every law enforcement tool as a shredding of the constitution – that
the safety of honest citizens suffers.

Skepticism of one's government is healthy. Oversight of law enforcement
is prudent. Propagating irrational fear of the police is unwarranted and
inflammatory.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures. . ." The Fifth Amendment guarantees one not ". .
. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
. ." To judge that giving one's name to a police officer would violate
either of these rights would be a torturous parsing of the Constitution.

Allan Bormel, a retired small businessman, is embarking on a new career
as a freelance opinion columnist.